How do you think World War Two relates or differs from modern day warfare?

How do you think World War Two relates or differs from modern day warfare?

 

I believe if you don't accomodate nuclear weapons than the tactics of a war in the present day and in the second world war would differ little. Of course the technology has changed significantly specifically with the increased ability for air attacks and strategically placed missles that can hit a target half way across the world.
But as I said with the increased capability of planes, the ability to shoot them down has also advanced greatly through modern day inventions. Instead of relying on a single machine gun to take down a fighter going close to 500 mph, we have hand held missles that have lock on capability that any infantry unit can carry.
With ground forces I believe tactics have changed little since the days of Alexander. Though the effectiveness of soldiers in a line has definitely decreased with the ability to mow down entire regiments with one soldier camouflaged in a wooded area. Like those times, though, they knew the way to win a battle was by out-flanking the enemy, cutting off supply lines, and eventually controlling the opposing army's capital.
With nuclear weapons, no matter how many treaties are passed to ban them, there is no way that they won't be used by a losing army. If you corner a cat, no matter how big the person cornering it is the cat will fight tooth and nail, anyway to win, and humans like all animals want to survive.

 

The basics are the same. Technology has definitely improved among the developed nations. In both, whomever has air superiority, controls the ground. On the ground, tactics are the same. Armour punches through and causes havoc behind enemy lines. Infantry follows up and consolidates. Technology is the only real difference and not by much with the advent of the V weapons and A-bomb.

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

 

I wouldn't totally agree with Demosthenes on that topic. I do acknowledge that many of the same tactics would still be used today and I have no doubt that nuclear weapons would be launch if an enemy knew the end was inevitable.
The main difference is being able to see the entire battle field unfold without even being there. The use of satellite technology is simply incredible. Most attacks relying solely on the element of surprise would be futile since the enemy will know right away what you are doing and will be able to organize an army and even counter the offensive. Battles like Normandy would never have happened since the main reason that it was won by the Allies was by confusing the enemy into thinking they were attacking somewhere, and then using a massed force to surprise the unsuspecting and undermanned German defenses in another area. After all a defensive battle doesn't take brilliant commanding or overwhelming numbers, all it needs is a warning of the oncoming enemy. If you can get your troops ready in enough time you can hold off nearly any attack.

 

I personally feel that modern warfare is a load of crap. I like relating back to the old day of warfare with barbarians and savages with ruthlessness and uncaring. Or the time of the knights where fighting was an honor given only to the best and nobelest of people in the land. If a war started tomorrow, it could end up being the end of the world with all but some several third world countries with nuclear capabilities, and the bombs being a hundred times the power of that used on Japan. All in all the tactics and straties of warfare are and will always be the same. However, one minor factor people fail to consider is that infantry units are almost obsolete with todays capabilities. The new wave of the future will be stealth weapons, or with my theory, widescale viruses such as the plaque that are in dectectable so that blame can be placed on any one country or nation.

------------------
I am the greatest strategist ever.

 

The new wave of battle technology is already in progress. The US is trying to stear away from bulky tanks and stick to more manuverable units with many other components controlled by a central unit. Using holographic technology will help make decoys and distract fire.

[This message has been edited by Otto (edited 12 March 2001).]

 

Anyone know how you get promoted?

 

HUZZAH!!!
What an inflamatory statement!
If you want 'ruthlessness and uncaring', read up on the fighting between the Germans and Russians in WW2!
The Chinese in Korea!
The Viet Cong in 'Nam!
The Mujehaddin in Afghanistan!
The Arabs vs the Israelis!
The Russians in Chechnya!
The Bosnians!
The Serbs!
The Croats!

The 'barbarians' never went away! They were let INSIDE the gates!

------------------
Novus Ordo Seclorum

[This message has been edited by Killjoy (edited 11 March 2001).]

 

AtillatheHun, I can't believe you could say such a thing. Now, after watching Gladiator, I can't deny that they weren't savages back then, but look at Stalin and Hitler. They killed millions of people and Stalin, 20 million of his own. If you can't call that barbaric then you definitely need to read a little more.

 

Actually Atilla did too.....You can only just imagine the butchery that went on. Little or no medicines, blades and axes etc as weapons....

I will send some photos to Otto when I can that are of midevil times. These will be photos of 2 handed swords, maces, spears, axes, pikes etc. These weapons are stored at the Old Arsenal in Solothurn Switzerland. The photos might help you understand the mentality of the times along with the savagry.

 

I agree with everybody that the basics are the same. The basics are as follows:

1. Establish air superiority.
2. Use air power to attact tactical and strategic targets.
3. Attack the enemy with suffecient numbers (numbers increase as technology goes down)

Throw in some intelligence and battle recon and you have the same set up. The major differnece is in the technology that goes along with the items mentioned.

 

You can't use air forces to hold land. They are simply for strategic attacks and for maruading supply lines.

 

You can use the Air Force to hold land. That is what tactical bombers are designed for. Just ask the Germans who were in Normandy. Ask the French in 1940. Ask the Greeks during 1941. If you don't have air superiority, you cannot control or hold positions. Basic warfare tactics.

------------------
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war there is nothing sweet or fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."

 

I have to disagree. You can't hold land with an airforce. You can maybe hold back troops but try trying to keep civilians under control. It's not possible.

 

combat in the air has changed...
***the dogfight is a rare thing in modern times but still can happen...but fighter combat starts miles away!
***are there large bomber airfleets? nope precision bombing is the way in modern times!
*** tactics on land seems similar to WW2 but i think the most obvious change in tactics is in the navy! How do ships now a days look compared to the 40's. No heavy guns. No anti-aircraft guns bristling all over!...Combat at sea seems that it would be fought at a distance through missles and anti-missle defenses.! submarines attack each other with torpedoes not surface ships...subs attack surface ships with missles not torpedoes.
A modern war would be more different than similar to WW2 but there would be some things that would be similar!

 

I think that technology is the only main reason for suck a difference between modern warfare and past event suck as WWII. New Inventions such as guided missles, nuclear weapons, faster and stronger airborne units, and most infantry waeponry have lessened the need for strategy. Earlier in our history, strategy could win battles, now all the commanders need is a few bombs to take out enemy bases and outposts. I also think that air units can AID in the holding of land. I believe that with the assistance of ground troops, air units can be very useful and effective.

 

all true, but in the end, its still the infantry that does the job and they still fight with rifles, grenades and bayonets. If both sides have advanced technology, sattelites and such, then neither party has real benefits from it and as always.... the infantry has to get the job done....face it guys...Infantry rules!!! so, war is still much like in the old days, just the tools changed a little.



------------------
*** We shall not retreat, nor shall we surrender. If we cannot stay here alive, we shall stay here dead***

 

Maybe infantry is needed now and was needed "then", but do all of you think it will be needed in the future? I mean will something new, some type of new technology be created so that infantry as we know it will not be necessary?